Profile of Cannonade

I think Allies in big team games are a lot more difficult to play, especially in random teams. Obviously having an arranged team will give you a huge advantage, but i think this is more evident for the allies. Since the allied factions are focused on attacking, it requires a lot more coordination and planning than the Axis factions. This problem is magnified in random-player team games. The coordination and communication isn't there to allow allied players to capitalize on their early-game advantage.

But yet you haven't played even a single match as Axis...
Where are you drawing these conclusions from?

It's sub-company level really, more like platoon size.

Full pop-cap represents about company size, per the name of the game.

Reducing Sov MG/Mortar crews to 4man, and removing the accuracy received penalty would result in similar small arms durability to other support teams, I think, as well as vs latergame AoE ordnance.

RNade however presents a problem there, because though it could be nerfed to coincide with 4man Sov support teams, it would then also be far less effective vs other large infantry units. Perhaps thats not so bad though, considering RNades inherent range advantage vs Molotovs.

Both are actually sort of primarily setup team/garrison counters anyways, more than they are base infantry counters.

Infact the more I think of it, the more I think a significant RNade nerf would be alright, if Sov Support teams where infact 4man instead of 6.

Weird that, but somehow a Sov support crew size nerf actually opens an opportunity to nerf RNade substantially too with much less counterindicators against it. Know what I mean? Sort of shifts the paradigm for what RNades and Molotovs actually really should be back into the role of anti-setup team and garrison, which if you think about it, is what they actually really are.

I think its undisputed, that TTK on setup teams should be more or less identical by baseline small arms AND explosive AoE, across all factions.
I think if Sov MG/Mortars are reduced to 4man, and the accuracy received penatly is removed, it should roughly equate to still surviving as long vs small arms as they do now as a 6man (considering the better DPS of non-Sov baseline infantry, the small arms of which are designed vs 6man units asymetrically).

This also means they are as vulnerable as other 4man setup teams to later game explosive aoe.

Furthermore, Sov support teams being 6man has had two other rather odd effects:
1) It makes Merge and combined arms with Cons lackluster. At 6man, they frankly dont need to be merged much, whereas at 4man Merge becomes pretty serious as a means to keep Supoirt Teams at fighting strength.
2) Sov Support Teams, as 6man, are unduly apt as weapon scavengers. Whereas the Support Teams od other factions are decimated to 1 model in the parent unit when capturing, and required to be at full strength to even attempt it withthout losing the parent, Sov Support Teams can much more readily capture weapons.

It could be argued that the twonoddities above are flavorful and characteristic, but they also are concrete advantages unique to Sov that need to be considered as "value added".

TLDR:
-Reduce to 4man
-Remove accuracy received penalty
-Nerf RNade

Result:
-Sov MG/Mortars survive as roughly equivalent to other Support Teams, vs both small arms AND explosive AoE.
-Merge becomes more prominent.
-Sov Weapon team scavenger potential made equivalent to other Support teams.
-RNade re-aligned back to primary role as anti-setup/garrison counter, rather than generalised long range grenade.
(RNade has always been problematic.
1) It synchs too well with Grens inherent long range advantage, especially with LMG added, vs ALL soft targets.
2) Because of its range, its difficult to predict, as it doesnt telegraph itself by a unit moving close as with other grenades, as well as being able to delpoy from out of enemy LoS.
3) Its been frankly too powerful in terms of damage, becsuse its been required to operate with effect vs 6man Support Teams, and therefore carrying that same power, with all the above advantages, vs combat infantry too.
4) Its garrison destruction has also been too high, again, because its designed against 6man units. Molotov is an absolute garrison denier, but justified due to range constraints. RNade however is overperforming in comparison, because of the necessities of operating vs a 6man setup team, and the inherent advantages of range and lack oftelegraphing as above.)

PS: Ive deliberately left out ATGs. I think thats a discussion for another time, and because ATGs are fundamentally different in their roles. Though they also strictly speaking are Support Teams, they regularly face armor in order to fulfill their roles, and armor carries MGs and Mainguns which sre a whole different ballgame compared to infantry small arms combat.

Don't answer me in this thread unless you have a suggestion to make allied factions more appealing. Do you understand?

Not even sure what thats supposed to mean, but ok.

Make Allies wear pink uniforms. Will that help?

Wth does "appeal" have to do with anything?
Its certainly not related to balance.

Stopped reading there.

Except its true.
The entire baseline infantry stats and small arms are all based on that basic balance.
Its quite sound and functional. The earlier the game is infact, in many senses, the more balanced it is.
Most balance issues become an issue only due to a more advanced system of complications in balance that develop in later game stages.

At the start, though, its pretty stable, especially in terms of baseline infantry.

By the way, the thread is about proposing things to make allies appealing.
If you are going to start another BS faction war, please go to troll elsewhere.

The thread, and others like it, cover a veiled argument that somehow "appeal" implies balance.
It doesn't. And infact your own posts here have been specific to balance, and trying to cover them as if they wheren't a "BS faction war". Its called a strawman argument.

I know what you are trying, man, and its not gonna fly. Sorry.